3 ms·

The GPL does quite intentionally not require you to provide a public download page (or git access, etc), and this was more or less discussed and a conscious dec

The GPL does quite intentionally not require you to provide a public download page (or git access, etc), and this was more or less discussed and a conscious decision by those who came up with the GPL, agreed. Albeit in pre-widespread-internet days when a "public download page" wasn't a thing yet (and the equivalents were much more expensive, thus why they might not have wanted to require that burden). But still. I agree this is more or less intentional and explicit in the GPL. But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended to do. At any rate, this is a different thing, and to me another level of shadiness, than simply pointing out that the GPL does not require an entity to distribute the source via public download links -- this is about the entity trying to prohibit users from re-distributing the source themselves, and the GPL really was intentionally designed to try and avoid such prohibitions, that's kind of it's whole reason for existing.

cryptonector 3y ago
> But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended to do. Does "Nope nope nope" answer the first question with "no", but then the "I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not" answer it with "maybe"? Or was the "nope" think just a wish? I believe the GPL is silent on that. You might be right that this would be an inadvertent loophole, but as you know, it's not trivial to fix this sort of problem.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  Nope nope nope means this is a different quality of thing, the things you are trying to put in the same category are in different categories. the GPL, by it's own text explaining itself, is intended to ensure that users of GPL software always have the right to re-distribute it. It says that right in it. If your point is that IBM has enough lawyers and money to prevent users from redistributing GPL software, and they may have figured out how to exersize a loophole that will be difficult to do anything about it, especially cause of all those lawyers and money... right, indeed, sure. If you are suggesting that we should all consider this just fine, and you don't care what the GPL intended to do, and you don't think anyone else should either, and we should all aspire to make money by getting away with subverting the GPL... okay, thanks for sharing? But as for me: nope nope nope.
  - cryptonector 3y ago
    > If your point is that IBM has enough lawyers and money to prevent users from redistributing GPL software, and they may have figured out how to exersize a loophole that will be difficult to do anything about it, especially cause of all those lawyers and money... right, indeed, sure. It's not. The that IBM has here is that they're doing is not lawyers and money, it's that their customers depend on them -- vendor lock-in if you wish. > If you are suggesting that we should all consider this just fine, and you don't care what the GPL intended to do, and you don't think anyone else should either, and we should all aspire to make money by getting away with subverting the GPL... okay, thanks for sharing? But as for me: nope nope nope. I'm suggesting something else entirely. First, that if IBM is legally right but you/we/they don't like it, there's voting with wallets, or sucking it up if you're stuck with IBM. Second, I'm suggesting that open source is a business tool for everyone from a poor individual to a multi-billion company -- a tool rather than an end in itself. Now, I agree that open source as an end is fun ("look ma', what code I wrote!"), but people still need to put food on the table. Just like fine art, where artists want total freedom of expression, but often produce the kinds of art that will sell well because... it's nice to not be dependent on charity. Even back in the days when artists had patrons, they still had to appeal to the patrons' tastes, and if they wanted to revolutionize art they had to convince the patrons that that was a good thing.
    - jrochkind1 3y ago
      If using open source while putting food on the table is incompatible with the freedom for users to redistribute open source software, than the aims of the GPL has failed. Which is possible. Where we disagree is that you are trying to summarize them all as the same thing -- either you are doing something that violates the license in a way that can be enforced in court, or it's all just the same category of doing what the license allows as a tool while putting food on the table. The difference, I am suggesting, within that category, is simply that the GPL was very specifically designed to allow users of GPL software to redistribute that software without restriction, and Red Hat is trying to prevent this, while using GPL'd software. It's as simple as that. This makes it different than just any generic "I'm within the letter of the license while trying to maximize the profit I can make from using this open source". Whether it is within the license or not is not clear, only a court can decide. Whether it violates the intent of the GPL is pretty clear, it says so right in the GPL. Of course, nobody has to care about the intent of the GPL, but you don't have to consider open source an "end and not a tool" to care about the intent of the GPL. The choice is not just "I think open source is a political movement rather than tool", vs "I am fine with companies using GPL software to do things the GPL's whole reason for existing is to prevent, if that's what they need to do to maximize their profit, cause we're all just maximizing our profit here, whatever you can get away with is fine." Open source is a tool, and GPL open source is a tool that preserves the right to modify and/or redistribute it, which is why some people choose to use it or license under it. I do understand that those rights are of no concern to you, right.
mattl 3y ago
Don't forget that the FSF was selling binaries as a fundraising opportunity for a while as part of the Deluxe Distribution they'd sell for $5000, and before that Stallman was selling copies of GNU Emacs on tapes for $250. Selling binaries has always been a business model.
- jrochkind1 3y ago
  selling binaries, yes. Trying to prevent people from redistributing the source: no. (Yes, in an internet world, it's hard to make money selling binaries if people can redistribute source, maybe. the FSF was selling binaries in a different context, for better or worse. You are still welcome to sell binaries. You are even welcome to charge for distribution of source. But the fundamental goal of the GPL is to give users the right to redistribute source without restriction. The FSF never tried to limit that.)

cryptonector 3y ago

> But that the GPL lets you take GPL software, add your own features on top, sell it, and tell customers that if they redistribute it themselves (as the GPL explicitly allows), you will refuse to sell them software in the future ever again? Nope nope nope. I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not, but if it does, it seems pretty clear to me that it's inadvertant, and not what the GPL was intended to do. Does "Nope nope nope" answer the first question with "no", but then the "I think it's not entirely clear if the GPL allows that or not" answer it with "maybe"? Or was the "nope" think just a wish? I believe the GPL is silent on that. You might be right that this would be an inadvertent loophole, but as you know, it's not trivial to fix this sort of problem.

jrochkind1 3y ago
Nope nope nope means this is a different quality of thing, the things you are trying to put in the same category are in different categories. the GPL, by it's own text explaining itself, is intended to ensure that users of GPL software always have the right to re-distribute it. It says that right in it. If your point is that IBM has enough lawyers and money to prevent users from redistributing GPL software, and they may have figured out how to exersize a loophole that will be difficult to do anything about it, especially cause of all those lawyers and money... right, indeed, sure. If you are suggesting that we should all consider this just fine, and you don't care what the GPL intended to do, and you don't think anyone else should either, and we should all aspire to make money by getting away with subverting the GPL... okay, thanks for sharing? But as for me: nope nope nope.
- cryptonector 3y ago
  > If your point is that IBM has enough lawyers and money to prevent users from redistributing GPL software, and they may have figured out how to exersize a loophole that will be difficult to do anything about it, especially cause of all those lawyers and money... right, indeed, sure. It's not. The that IBM has here is that they're doing is not lawyers and money, it's that their customers depend on them -- vendor lock-in if you wish. > If you are suggesting that we should all consider this just fine, and you don't care what the GPL intended to do, and you don't think anyone else should either, and we should all aspire to make money by getting away with subverting the GPL... okay, thanks for sharing? But as for me: nope nope nope. I'm suggesting something else entirely. First, that if IBM is legally right but you/we/they don't like it, there's voting with wallets, or sucking it up if you're stuck with IBM. Second, I'm suggesting that open source is a business tool for everyone from a poor individual to a multi-billion company -- a tool rather than an end in itself. Now, I agree that open source as an end is fun ("look ma', what code I wrote!"), but people still need to put food on the table. Just like fine art, where artists want total freedom of expression, but often produce the kinds of art that will sell well because... it's nice to not be dependent on charity. Even back in the days when artists had patrons, they still had to appeal to the patrons' tastes, and if they wanted to revolutionize art they had to convince the patrons that that was a good thing.
  - jrochkind1 3y ago
    If using open source while putting food on the table is incompatible with the freedom for users to redistribute open source software, than the aims of the GPL has failed. Which is possible. Where we disagree is that you are trying to summarize them all as the same thing -- either you are doing something that violates the license in a way that can be enforced in court, or it's all just the same category of doing what the license allows as a tool while putting food on the table. The difference, I am suggesting, within that category, is simply that the GPL was very specifically designed to allow users of GPL software to redistribute that software without restriction, and Red Hat is trying to prevent this, while using GPL'd software. It's as simple as that. This makes it different than just any generic "I'm within the letter of the license while trying to maximize the profit I can make from using this open source". Whether it is within the license or not is not clear, only a court can decide. Whether it violates the intent of the GPL is pretty clear, it says so right in the GPL. Of course, nobody has to care about the intent of the GPL, but you don't have to consider open source an "end and not a tool" to care about the intent of the GPL. The choice is not just "I think open source is a political movement rather than tool", vs "I am fine with companies using GPL software to do things the GPL's whole reason for existing is to prevent, if that's what they need to do to maximize their profit, cause we're all just maximizing our profit here, whatever you can get away with is fine." Open source is a tool, and GPL open source is a tool that preserves the right to modify and/or redistribute it, which is why some people choose to use it or license under it. I do understand that those rights are of no concern to you, right.

mattl 3y ago

Don't forget that the FSF was selling binaries as a fundraising opportunity for a while as part of the Deluxe Distribution they'd sell for $5000, and before that Stallman was selling copies of GNU Emacs on tapes for $250. Selling binaries has always been a business model.

jrochkind1 3y ago
selling binaries, yes. Trying to prevent people from redistributing the source: no. (Yes, in an internet world, it's hard to make money selling binaries if people can redistribute source, maybe. the FSF was selling binaries in a different context, for better or worse. You are still welcome to sell binaries. You are even welcome to charge for distribution of source. But the fundamental goal of the GPL is to give users the right to redistribute source without restriction. The FSF never tried to limit that.)